surreptitious75 wrote:Numbers are not real so obviously you would not expect to find them anywhere in physical realityThose words you typed are not real either but they still exist as abstractions just like numbers do

Silhouette wrote:Devise a repeatable and falsifiable experiment to prove the existence of at least one Platonic form.

I am not asking for hand wavey terms, shaky logic and implicit assumptions - give me something as undeniably legitimate as proving the existence of a tree.

Who claimed this guy had a high IQ btw?

Umm... every experiment that's repeatable that has ever used math!!!??!

You're joking right?

Everyone knows you can't find the number one anywhere or the number 4, but we all know they exist. We know since we can't find them anywhere, that they exist outside space time, which is what a platonic form is

But you come on like some kind of jackass, and say "my post isn't real". And ecmandu is a retarded for thinking it is... you're disgusting

You know, I actually take time out of my day to reply to you, and you give everyone the middle finger by saying you and your entire posting history isn't real..

Ecmandu wrote:Umm... every experiment that's repeatable that has ever used math!!!??!

As you just implied about math not having physical existence, math isn't the experiment (such as I asked for), it's the tool used to quantify the physical data that is gathered from experiment.

Using math isn't the proof of the findings of experiment, nor are any "platonic forms". You see a tree, it's real. You see how it behaves under different real conditions in a repeatable way - everything's physical, you can prove it and make your proof more comprehensible and predictive using math.

I'm asking you to devise an experiment to show that Platonic forms are as undoubtedly real as something like a tree.As you show that you understand, you can't - Platonic forms are "outside space time" - thus they not undoubtedly real: they can be reasonably doubted. You can be reasonably doubted.

The utility of math cannot be doubted, but math itself can be: just as you admit that "you can't find the number one anywhere or the number 4". Math is more of a description of a way of mentally compartmentalising reality. That isn't a proof of it, it's more of a proof that we can think in a certain way that we normally explain as "using math". You can prove the reality that people also think in a certain way that can be similarly explained as "conceiving of Platonic forms". You can do the same for people thinking in a certain way that can be explained as "believing in Santa". Why should we doubt Santa any less than Platonic forms?

The idea of Santa and even belief in him has a real effect on the behaviour of real things/people. We accept that this doesn't make Santa real.The idea of math and even the belief in it has a real effect on the behaviour of real things/people. We accept that math is real.

What's the difference?The belief in Santa cannot be used to create real possibilities that were previously not possible. Math can (and consistently has).What does the belief in Platonic forms do to create real possibilities that were not previously possible?

Are they gonna make "hyper-dimensional mirrors" or a "consensual reality"? No. If anything, math could - but back to my request: devise an experiment to cause such things to be real. Devise an experiment to show Platonic forms are real.

You can't.You can be reasonably doubted.

I am genuinely interested in where this IQ rumour about you came from. A person with a high IQ would have surmised that what I said was not sufficient to be interpreted as calling you retarded. Nothing you have ever said that I have read has been sufficient to show you have a high IQ. Speaking as someone with a legitimately proven high IQ, this warrants genuine my intrigue and not your disgust.

Ecmandu wrote:Utility is the only verification that exists. You said that the utility of math cannot be denied, but math can be.

That I can prove that you are engaged in a useless argument alone shows that things with no utility can exist.

Does the uselessness to me of a grain of sand mean it cannot be verified to exist? Utility is the only verification that exists?! Clearly there are innumerable counter examples to this ridiculously sweeping statement, of which the above are just two.

Regardless, if you had read my argument in full (and had a sufficient IQ to discern it) you would have discovered that I qualified how utility can both be and not be proof of existence.

Ecmandu wrote:Utility is the only verification that exists. You said that the utility of math cannot be denied, but math can be.

That I can prove that you are engaged in a useless argument alone shows that things with no utility can exist.

Does the uselessness to me of a grain of sand mean it cannot be verified to exist? Utility is the only verification that exists?! Clearly there are innumerable counter examples to this ridiculously sweeping statement, of which the above are just two.

Regardless, if you had read my argument in full (and had a sufficient IQ to discern it) you would have discovered that I qualified how utility can both be and not be proof of existence.

Platonic forms are Santa.

Using a grain of sand as an attempt at an argument against me, just made each grain of sand, utile.

Ecmandu wrote:Philosophers from 3000 years ago were smarter than you are now.

I find that sad.

Today's people learn about Plato to learn about rudimentary attempts at philosophy. Calling out Plato has been a staple of all kinds of criticism from countless philosophers since then. You gonna accuse all of them of being less smart than him just because they realised the flaws in early philosophical argumentation?

Get real. Literally.

Just because you're stuck in the relative stone age of philosophy, doesn't mean people who find fault in your assertions aren't smart. Learn your basics from a kind of golden age of philosophy, by all means. But my arguments had clear and valid reasoning like many before me. The fact that you're saddened by my not agreeing with the medical equivalent of the "4 humours" in the wake of modern medical advancements is in itself sad. No troll. Genuinely.

phyllo wrote:I don't know why people are beating on you when you're not saying much more than what Plato said.

It's a general trend of his that's being picked up on here. Sure, talk about Plato, he's philosophy and worth talking about, but there's much much more than him going around since.

Ecmandu wrote:If you actually read the enniads, he comes the the same conclusion as me, that all existents have platonic forms, including all humans.

Well if an old collection of writings says it, it must be true!

You realise your argument is "it's been said by at least two people who lived nearly 2000 years ago! Therefore it's true!", right?

You think nobody built on that or revolutionised or even re-invented/inverted philosophy since then? Keep learning about the Ancient Greeks, by all means - then move on to newer philosophy and see what you think then.

Maybe in a few years you'll be worth talking to. Not to discourage you - I want you and everyone to grow - just... don't act like you're already there.

Ecmandu wrote:If you actually read the enniads, he comes the the same conclusion as me, that all existents have platonic forms, including all humans.

Well if an old collection of writings says it, it must be true!

You realise your argument is "it's been said by at least two people who lived nearly 2000 years ago! Therefore it's true!", right?

You think nobody built on that or revolutionised or even re-invented/inverted philosophy since then? Keep learning about the Ancient Greeks, by all means - then move on to newer philosophy and see what you think then.

Maybe in a few years you'll be worth talking to. Not to discourage you - I want you and everyone to grow - just... don't act like you're already there.

You sound like iambiguous... "it can't be true because in a trillion years someone may find something different ... and that can't be true either because in a trillion more years, someone might find something different... ad nauseum...

I'm man enough to say that people 2000 years ago may have been smarter than me. Are you?

Ecmandu wrote:You sound like iambiguous... "it can't be true because in a trillion years someone may find something different ... and that can't be true either because in a trillion more years, someone might find something different... as nauseum...

I'm man enough to say that people 2000 years ago may have been smarter than me. Are you?

Statistically speaking in a room of 2000 people, assuming there's a representative sample of the population of the world, there's going to be a few cleverer people than me. No shame felt here. Does the same work for 2000 years?

It very well may do, and given the potential existence of statistical outliers, it's perfectly possible in theory. Given that over the past 2000 years people have been being selected at least in part for intelligence, and there have been recorded upward trends in IQ in only the past few generations (the Flynn effect), it's also perfectly possible that a great deal of today's living people are smarter than a great deal of people who lived 2000 years ago - maybe even myself! I don't have to be a man or otherwise to maintain reasonable doubt that 2000 year of philosophers may not be a match for at least some of their successors, just aware of trends in general - or even simply aware of ideas that have followed the Ancient Greeks! Statistics aside, knowledge of the actual content is enough.

I mean come on, man. Have you not even read any philosophers since Plato? Do so, immediately. I'm not saying they're right, even if they were/are smarter, but at least just gain some balance and context in reasoning and logic beyond just one set of old ideas that you kinda like.

I'm not even saying that in a trillion years someone may find something different, I'm saying we already did. Several times. Humility is your friend.